What Did Jack Do?

I loved this short film. It is very creative. Maybe I am reading too much into things, but I see this film as a satire on the hackneyed state of the English language. Lynch is making fun of the way many people speak. He is also indirectly criticizing the way many screenwriters write. His basic premise: Even monkeys can be trained to speak movie dialogue, because the dialogue in so many films is filled with cliches.

Standing next to most films, "What Did Jack Do?" is utterly absurd. But alongside David Lynch's work, it is actually rather tame.

This short movie from the notoriously surreal auteur premiered in 2017 at Paris' Fondation Cartier pour l'Art Contemporain. It then arrived at Netflix in early 2020, making it Lynch's first original contribution to the streaming site.

At seventeen minutes long, "What Did Jack Do?" has a cast of four. Lynch plays a detective and Emily Stolfe a waitress. Meanwhile, a capuchin monkey named Jack Cruz takes the titular role, and a chicken named Toototabon is also credited as herself. Oddly enough, the monkey gets most of the lines, as the plot focuses on Lynch's character interrogating the creature during a murder investigation.

The dialogue between Lynch and his primate co-star is the kind of witty sharp stuff that we've come to expect out of his this unique writer/director. The only difference is that, this time, half the conversation comes from the mouth of an exotic animal, who cusses, jests, and delivers impassioned soliloquies against Lynch's steadfastly hard-boiled law man. Late in the film, Jack even sings a cut-away musical number.

Of course, it is not actually Jack speaking or singing these lines, but some uncredited voice actor. To visually pull this off, a human mouth is digitally pasted onto Jack's unassuming face. Does it look believable? Not quite. In fact, it looks no better than a Snapchat filter. However, when we're watching a capuchin monkey defend himself against criminal accusations with no explanation, we're embracing the uncanny enough to easily accept such visual inconsistencies.

Otherwise, "What Did Jack Do?" is aesthetically simple. It's mostly crosscutting mid-shots between Jack and the Detective talking across a table. Cinematographer Scott Andrew Ressler filmed in black and white with hazy edges to seemingly emulate classic film noir.

After all, Lynch clearly pokes fun at the noir style with this short. The script could very well be a scene from a genuine crime drama, but when one of the characters is of a different species, the whole thing becomes a gag. With hilarious outcome, it demonstrates how over-the-top some movie dialogue can be, as the prototypical detective retains a straight demeanor, coolly dragging on his cigarette while listening to a monkey talk about life, love, and loss.

Again, it is a strikingly weird piece of cinema, but coming from the man behind "Eraserhead," "Twin Peaks," and "Mullholand Drive," "What Did Jack Do?" could be far more esoteric than it is. The mere fact that we can follow this short film's manifest content proves that it is a conservative-leaning Lynch project.

Then again, my interpretation could be completely wrong. Lynch might've not had noir on his mind at all here. Alternatively, he might be making a statement about language, evolution, society, the id, or any other aspect of humanity.

Or, he might just be having some fun with a camera and a monkey.

Either way, we are left laughing.

If you're into a noir aesthetic, a surrealist script, and, yes, a talking, cussing, singing monkey, look no further! What Jack did was perfect.

I love every minute out of that short. Why? Let me explain. It gives us a simple story, a cop who questions a bad guy who did something bad, seems familiar? That's because it's meant to be like that! Lynch is exposing that cliche dialogue scene, which is used in every crime movie. This quick scene uses absurd to critique the language of cinema and give us some good laughs.

Of course there are people who don't like his humor, but I'd heard they've been seen with chickens.

This short film is incredibly Lynchian. It's purely a signature of style, and I mean that in the most positive way possible. However, I can't help but wonder, if this short came from anyone else who lacked the renown which Lynch has, would it be viewed as anything more than a peculiar piece that you pass by after five minutes? It's good in its eerie, dream-like quality, truly, but I'm torn as to whether this is noteworthy solely because of what it is in style or simply because of who made it--content aside. I suppose I'm at a stalemate of neutrality on this one. Draw your own conclusions, and I hope you enjoy, either way!